A model 2001 or a 2001 super air? I know they had a 502 Python at some years... was there also a 454 before the 502 for the superairs/air nautiques? To answer simply, yes 454s and 502s have been shoehorned into various nautiques throughout the years.

True. Hence why I have a fuel injected small block now. But the big block grunt and lope is awesome. My old closed bow supra had the 390 hp 454. Buddy's used to give me hell that I had a go fast not a wakeboat.

I used to ride behind a friends 454 years and years ago. The fuel gauge moved faster than the speedo. I figured that the performance fuel trade off was not worth it unless you were pulling a show team. Nevermind the loss of space. However, I also never would have guessed that 25 years years later I would be hauling a couple thousand pounds of water.

^^^ Interesting and I don't doubt your results at all but we are comparing different things. I am comparing the 454 to the 351 carbureted engines available for a specific boat. In comparison to your SAN, the 454 may be the right choice for a sacked out Barefoot Nautique.

I was behind 454's, 350's and 351's in both 2001's, barefoot nautique's and mastercraft's in the days of slalom skiing and barefooting. You got better grunt and an few more MPH's but the big blocks definitely drank more juice in those applications. If you barefooted the better choice was an outboard over the 454 nautique.

Tricky boat. Good boat but the Barefoot Nautique had a different hull than the legendary 2001, and produced a different wake. I've actually never been behind a weighted one, only unweighted and I can say it wasn't great. At 22mph, there is a pretty big difference in the wake size. I think the Barefood v-drive was only made for a couple of years. 1987-1989 (EJ: edit/correction 1987 to 1990, then v-drive in 1991)? The reports I hear of a weighted Barefoot Nautique are less impressive than the 2001. If you really want to make things confusing, look at the v-drive Excels or v-drive Barefoot Nautiques. Weird inbetweeners that bridged the Ski Nautique 2001 - Super Sport (SAN, 210, Classic 210, other names). The V-drive Excel and v-drive Barefoot Nautiques are VERY desirable.

^^^ Interesting and I don't doubt your results at all but we are comparing different things. I am comparing the 454 to the 351 carbureted engines available for a specific boat. In comparison to your SAN, the 454 may be the right choice for a sacked out Barefoot Nautique.

I was behind 454's, 350's and 351's in both 2001's, barefoot nautique's and mastercraft's in the days of slalom skiing and barefooting. You got better grunt and an few more MPH's but the big blocks definitely drank more juice in those applications. If you barefooted the better choice was an outboard over the 454 nautique.

I may have misunderstood you. I've just always believed that larger engines when propped correctly , don't really eat any more gas than smaller engines due to the lesser effort required by the larger motor. I know they sure cost more though.

Tricky boat. Good boat but the Barefoot Nautique had a different hull than the legendary 2001, and produced a different wake. I've actually never been behind a weighted one, only unweighted and I can say it wasn't great. At 22mph, there is a pretty big difference in the wake size. I think the Barefood v-drive was only made for a couple of years. 1987-1989 (EJ: edit/correction 1987 to 1990, then v-drive in 1991)? The reports I hear of a weighted Barefoot Nautique are less impressive than the 2001. If you really want to make things confusing, look at the v-drive Excels or v-drive Barefoot Nautiques. Weird inbetweeners that bridged the Ski Nautique 2001 - Super Sport (SAN, 210, Classic 210, other names). The V-drive Excel and v-drive Barefoot Nautiques are VERY desirable.

Okay so, are you saying the DD Barefoots weren't so great? I've said this before on WW and I'll say it again. The Barefoot V-Drive is the best kept secret as far as budget wake boats go bar none. When I sold my 91 Barefoot (for $18,500 with 400 hours in Oct. 2004 "when everyone had money") I was a little dissappointed as far as the wake size goes when I bought my new at the time SAN in 05. There wasn't a significant difference in wake size/shape. That's right. I said it. True story. There are other mitigating reasons to have made the switch but, they also cost money too. Not that I regret the move but, that Barefoot wake is for real. Never surfed behind it so I can't comment on that.

I'm pretty sure the Excel and Barefoot are the same hull. The Barefoot just had the big block if I'm not mistaken. I also think that the V-Drive Barefoot/Excel hull went from at least 90-92. Unfortunately I don't have any pics other than my first torn ACL that would show what a Barefoot hull can do. Wish I did.

I have a '92 Excel with an Aerial Airborne tower that I just bought last spring. We load it up with about 900 lbs on each side of the v-drive, and 800 lbs up in the bow so 1,700 total (thanks to my buddy!). I really enjoy it. It throws a great wake that is super fun. I haven't ridden behind a newer wake boat in a while so I can't say how it compares. Next time I'm out we'll snap a picture and post it and ya'll can be the judge.

This winter, I'm going to install reversible ballast pumps with switches and try to get the normal ballast up to over 2,600. We tried surfing behind it with about 2,000 lbs a few times and it went OK. We weren't able to throw the rope back in and ride without it, but it was a good sized wake with a decent curl. We had it full with some larger people one time and it got really close. I'm willing to bet if I got the 1,100 surf sack from wakemakers plus 2,600 in normal ballast it would surf pretty well. That is hopefully the plan

I have a '92 Excel with an Aerial Airborne tower that I just bought last spring. We load it up with about 900 lbs on each side of the v-drive, and 800 lbs up in the bow so 1,700 total (thanks to my buddy!). I really enjoy it. It throws a great wake that is super fun. I haven't ridden behind a newer wake boat in a while so I can't say how it compares. Next time I'm out we'll snap a picture and post it and ya'll can be the judge.

This winter, I'm going to install reversible ballast pumps with switches and try to get the normal ballast up to over 2,600. We tried surfing behind it with about 2,000 lbs a few times and it went OK. We weren't able to throw the rope back in and ride without it, but it was a good sized wake with a decent curl. We had it full with some larger people one time and it got really close. I'm willing to bet if I got the 1,100 surf sack from wakemakers plus 2,600 in normal ballast it would surf pretty well. That is hopefully the plan